Insofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

In addition, on their website, the RSGB say that all subscribersto that discussion group must obey the RSGB rules aboutInternet behaviour.

But that can only mean the behaviour once that discussiongroup is joined, and not in some imagined fraction of therules beforehand, else how can someone with a history ofposting abusive messages on the Internet about Asperger'sSyndrome and about employment limited to lavatory cleaningbe not only a subscriber to that discussion group but alsoa manager of that group?

Is there a double standard being applied, or is itmerely the disingenuity of the RSGB for which theyhave become renowned in recent years?

It was bad enough that the RSGB kicked its formersupporters in the teeth when the bequeathed historicalequipment was binned and the acquisition of its ownheadquarters by the investers of the Lamba Investmentcompany was substituted by a rented slum juxta thesewage works of Bedford, but this treatment of _REAL_radio amateurs being refused a subscription to RSGBTechreally shows up the RSGB, its board of directors, andits former directors for what they really are.

Do not forget that it was the RSGB who petitioned forthe introduction of the 3-tier coffer-filling fiasco tothe detrimant of _REAL_ amateur radio in Brit.

--Visit Derbyshire's 2nd biggest supplier of Bullshit:http://jprfarmdirect.co.uk===Obsessed with someone in North Kent?Feeling inferior due to being a lying halfwit?Fed up of being laughed at due to your badly thought out lies?Then post the same old shit to Usenet day-after-day-after-day...

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.

That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.

[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.Still, it is amusing to watch you.

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.Still, it is amusing to watch you.

OK, mention one fact I have wrong.

This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on ismore fun.

You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.Still, it is amusing to watch you.

OK, mention one fact I have wrong.

This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on ismore fun.You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?

Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrowthan in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you asa member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by yourinability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectlyreasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought youwould have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.

I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with youand not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practicalcontrol. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact thatit was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.Still, it is amusing to watch you.

OK, mention one fact I have wrong.

This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on ismore fun.You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?

Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrowthan in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you asa member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by yourinability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectlyreasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought youwould have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with youand not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practicalcontrol. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact thatit was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.

You run your group, my colleagues and I will run RSGBTech etc.

Just because your group is a flop, it isn't the fault of those who runRSGBTech. Why not just accept that and move on, rather than throwinganother of your tantrums.

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.Still, it is amusing to watch you.

OK, mention one fact I have wrong.

This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on ismore fun.You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?

Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrowthan in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you asa member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by yourinability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectlyreasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought youwould have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with youand not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practicalcontrol. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact thatit was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.

You run your group, my colleagues and I will run RSGBTech etc.Just because your group is a flop, it isn't the fault of those who runRSGBTech. Why not just accept that and move on, rather than throwinganother of your tantrums.

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.Still, it is amusing to watch you.

OK, mention one fact I have wrong.

This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on ismore fun.You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?

Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrowthan in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you asa member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by yourinability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectlyreasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought youwould have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with youand not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practicalcontrol. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact thatit was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.

You run your group, my colleagues and I will run RSGBTech etc.Just because your group is a flop, it isn't the fault of those who runRSGBTech. Why not just accept that and move on, rather than throwinganother of your tantrums.

Well done for not disputing the substance of my criticism! You can't.

You can blow hot air all you like. It changes nothing. In another year,you will still be blowing air, I'll still be ignoring you- other thanpointing out you are a fool etc. You are rather like your chum, althoughhis world is looking very shaking just now ;-)

--Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? IncapacityBenefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? Theyare depriving those in real need!

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.Still, it is amusing to watch you.

OK, mention one fact I have wrong.

This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on ismore fun.You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?

Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrowthan in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you asa member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by yourinability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectlyreasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought youwould have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with youand not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practicalcontrol. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact thatit was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.

You run your group, my colleagues and I will run RSGBTech etc.Just because your group is a flop, it isn't the fault of those who runRSGBTech. Why not just accept that and move on, rather than throwinganother of your tantrums.

Well done for not disputing the substance of my criticism! You can't.

You can blow hot air all you like. It changes nothing. In another year,you will still be blowing air, I'll still be ignoring you- other thanpointing out you are a fool etc. You are rather like your chum, althoughhis world is looking very shaking just now ;-)

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.Still, it is amusing to watch you.

OK, mention one fact I have wrong.

This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on ismore fun.You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?

Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrowthan in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you asa member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by yourinability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectlyreasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought youwould have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with youand not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practicalcontrol. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact thatit was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.

You run your group, my colleagues and I will run RSGBTech etc.Just because your group is a flop, it isn't the fault of those who runRSGBTech. Why not just accept that and move on, rather than throwinganother of your tantrums.

In other words you win don't take things any further...I underdtood that......

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Oh dear, you aren't one to let facts stop you ranting, are you.Still, it is amusing to watch you.

OK, mention one fact I have wrong.

This is a 'Mercedes' matter. Letting you, and your chums, rant on ismore fun.You could always set up a group and run it another way. Oh, I forgot,you do run a group, as does one of your chums. Remind how popular they are?

Ranting doesn't come into it. I am just pointing out, more in sorrowthan in anger, your rather squalid breach of the trust placed in you asa member and previous director of the RSGB. I am rather amused by yourinability to control your malicious impulse to refuse my perfectlyreasonable application to join the RSGB group. I honestly thought youwould have more sense than to make yourself look stupid unnecessarily.I am aware that the contract with Yahoo, and now groups.io, is with youand not the RSGB. I am talking of fiduciary duty, not practicalcontrol. You could have stolen one of their pencils, and the fact thatit was hard for them to get it back would not have made it your pencil.

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

I see from his header that M3OSN has joined the thread.

Would I be correct to asssume that his response is that ofa civilised decent and polite adult displaying thestatesmanlike behaviour that mightbe expected of a former director of the RSGB, a nationalorganisation, and showing the appropriateness of someone whois concerned about the state of amateur radio in Brit?

But taking your [1] above, no-one could possibly cause any troublefor that group because of the moderators.

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

www.facebook.com/RSGBTech

was that your sore finger? ......

There was a chip shop near my house in the early 90s that was owned by aChinese guy and that's how he said "Salt and vinegar?". Did good chips,though, and only 10p a portion!

Post by Gareth's Downstairs ComputerInsofar as RSGBTech was set up by the RSGB, and isso minuted in the reports of a committee or a boardmeeting, and it uses the RSGB name, there can be nodoubt that it is an official RSGB facility.

If the RSGB took the owners of the group to court and claimed that theyhad set up the group on behalf of the RSGB while members and perhapsofficers of that organisation, and that therefore the RSGB had a rightto take over control, then they might just win, ; but clearly theyhave no interest in doing so (perhaps rightly in view of the amount ofmembers' money it would cost0.That does leave the moderators who were members and/or officers of theRSGB in the position of having acted in an unethical manner by breachingthe trust placed in them and taking over the group to use for their ownpersonal gratification[1] rather than in the interests of the RSGB.But that is not a crime, just rather squalid behaviour.[1] by rejecting applications for membership purely on the basis ofpersonal spite rather than any genuine concern that the proposed memberwould cause problems for the group.

www.facebook.com/RSGBTech

was that your sore finger? ......

There was a chip shop near my house in the early 90s that was owned by aChinese guy and that's how he said "Salt and vinegar?". Did good chips,though, and only 10p a portion!

I can just about understand why some people emulate the Frenchpronunciation of words like 'hotel' and 'hospital' (erroneously, IMO -this is English, after all, not French). But 'hypocritical', FFS? Theword is Greek and the Greeks aspirate(d) their (h)aitches, often quiteheavily.

Post by Custos CustodumOn Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:51:00 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs ComputerI can just about understand why some people emulate the Frenchpronunciation of words like 'hotel' and 'hospital' (erroneously, IMO -this is English, after all, not French). But 'hypocritical', FFS? Theword is Greek and the Greeks aspirate(d) their (h)aitches, often quiteheavily.An hypercorrection, methinks. Or English as spoke by Gareth?

"An hotel" is perfectly correct written English, irregardless of how thewriter pronounces the word. I am less sure about "an hypocritical...".

Post by Custos CustodumOn Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:51:00 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs ComputerI can just about understand why some people emulate the Frenchpronunciation of words like 'hotel' and 'hospital' (erroneously, IMO -this is English, after all, not French). But 'hypocritical', FFS? Theword is Greek and the Greeks aspirate(d) their (h)aitches, often quiteheavily.An hypercorrection, methinks. Or English as spoke by Gareth?

"An hotel" is perfectly correct written English, irregardless of how thewriter pronounces the word.

Post by Custos CustodumOn Tue, 6 Feb 2018 13:51:00 +0000, Gareth's Downstairs ComputerI can just about understand why some people emulate the Frenchpronunciation of words like 'hotel' and 'hospital' (erroneously, IMO -this is English, after all, not French). But 'hypocritical', FFS? Theword is Greek and the Greeks aspirate(d) their (h)aitches, often quiteheavily.An hypercorrection, methinks. Or English as spoke by Gareth?